Officer Defies Orders: How UAPA Was Applied and What Triggered M’Lord’s Fury
New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case from Narayanpur district of Chhattisgarh in the Supreme Court, in which the court had exempted the petitioner from arrest on the last hearing i.e. on January 2, but bypassing the court's order, the SDO had taken the accused into custody by applying UAPA. The Supreme Court got angry at this and has ordered to present the officer who had applied UAPA.
In fact, petitioner Manish Rathore was charged under Section 506 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, in which the Supreme Court had exempted the accused from arrest but the district administration arrested him by imposing UAPA on him. In the case of Manish Rathore vs State of Chhattisgarh, on Monday, the lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner pleaded to the court that his client was not only arrested but also paraded around the city. The lawyer said that he also has photographs of this incident. On this, Justice Oka got angry at the state government. He said, this case is related to Section 506 of the IPC, then how did an officer apply UAPA in it? According to Bar and Bench, Justice Oka said, "In the order dated 2 January 2025, we had passed an interim order to protect the petitioner from arrest in FIR number 54/24 dated 14 May 2024. Then why was UAPA imposed in this case." The state government had taken the petitioner into custody on 29 January 25 by imposing UAPA against him. The court frowned upon this action of the state government and said, "At first glance, it seems that this action has been taken to fail the interim order passed by this court on 2 January 2025. Therefore, we issue notice to the SDO of Narayanpur district and direct him to appear in this court on 28 February." The court has also issued notice to the SDPO and SHO in the case. Everyone has been asked to explain their conduct.
Let us tell you that FIR No. 39/24 was registered against the petitioner under Section 506B of the Indian Penal Code. In connection with the said FIR, the petitioner was released on bail on the order of the Supreme Court, but on January 18, 2025, the Sub-Divisional Officer, District Narayanpur applied to the Sessions Judge to add Section 13 (1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and Section 8 (5) of the Special Public Security Act 2005 in FIR No. 39/24. After that the petitioner was arrested again.
